While reading the latest news on the UCLA taser incident, I found myself returning to the Daily Bruin, UCLA's student newspaper. I found myself reading a lot about Officer Terrence Duren, and instead of answering my questions it actually generated more. I expected to find all kinds of proven instances of misconduct, but instead it doesn't appear that Officer Duren was ever proven responsible for anything. I can't definitively say that Duren ever got the hint that what he was doing was wrong.
His past aside, was Officer Duren's conduct (as well as his partners) justified here? One piece of documentation may help: The UCPD Taser Policy (courtesy of The Daily Bruin).
From my first glance, it appears that the policy is awfully unclear. That said, did the UCPD officers break the policy? Yes.
Did the circumstances merit the [repeated] use of a taser? And was it used properly? Let's review.
From 301.24 PAIN COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES:
...Officers utilizing any pain compliance technique should consider the totality of the circumstance including, but not limited to:
(a) The potential for injury to the officer(s) or others if the technique is not used,
(b) The potential risk of serious injury to the individual being controlled,
(c ) The degree to which the pain compliance technique may be controlled in application according to the level of resistance,
(d) The nature of the offense involved,
(e) The level of resistance of the individual(s) involved,
(f) The need for prompt resolution of the situation,
(g) If time permits (e.g. passive demonstrators), other reasonable alternatives.
The application of any pain compliance technique shall be discountinued once the officer determines that full compliance has been achieved.
(emphasis mine)
(a) Is there potential injury to the officers or others? Questionable. They claim they felt threatened. I call bullshit, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
(d) Does the nature of the offense involved call for a tasering? In other words, does the punishment fit the alleged crime? I say: no. Seriously? A guy sits down and you taser him? Sounds excessive. In fact, sounds like excessive brutal force by a police officer.
(e) I don't think that the level of resistance merited a taser, because the subject was not outwardly violent. But that's just my Monday morning quarterbacking.
(f) Here's where I start getting angry. Did the situation really require "prompt" resolution? If Tabatabainejad was in the library 2 minutes longer, would it have severely disrupted anything? Which leads to
(g) With 4 officers, I don't understand why they couldn't just carry Tabatabainejad out of the room instead of using potentially deadly force. What enables me to say that is this from the same policy:
- DEFINITION
The Taser is a less lethal device used to incapacitate subjects...
(emphasis mine)
Let's be clear. This officer was trained that tasers are not completely safe. That's why so many circumstances need to be considered. Unfortunately, the Taser Policy seems to have as many loopholes as a corporate tax code. So let's assume for the moment that the subject was so threatening that taser use was merited. Fine. But there are more rules:
- GENERAL
Although not absolutely prohibited, officers should give additional consideration to the unique circumstances involved prior to applying the Taser to any of the following individuals:
A) Pregnant females;
B) Elderly individuals or obvious juveniles;
C) Individuals who are handcuffed or otherwise restrained;
D) Individuals who have been recently sprayed with alcohol based Pepper Spray or who are otherwise in close proximity to any combustible material;
E) Individuals whose position or activity may result in collateral injury (e.g. falls from significant heights, operating vehicles, etc.)
(emphasis mine)
There is a clear directive that individuals who are "handcuffed or otherwise restrained" should not be tased, as Tabatabainejad was. However, there is also the caveat, "Although not absolutely prohibited..." That is there to protect the officers who use good discretion - and rightfully so. So while I believe that this is where the officers clearly violate their policy, the officers would say that they used their discretion and determined that it was still necessary.
And I would say that their discretion is worthless and they should hand in their badges. Even if they claimed that they didn't explicitly violate standard procedure, they should be rendered incompetent for the job. Bad judgment gets you fired in most jobs. We should have high expectations for our police force.
If we can't fire them there, then here's where we can do it:
- POST DEPLOYMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
A) Any use or attempted use of a Taser against a subject shall be immediately reported to the Watch Commander. Officers and/or supervisors who have discharged a Taser on a suspect shall:
i) Restrain and secure the subject, as soon as possible...
(emphasis still mine)
Did any of the officers immediately report that a taser was used? Did they do it each time after the taser was used? I've only seen the YouTube video so I can't say. But there were 4 of them and they have radios, and I don't need to hear an excuse about how they were all so busy that they couldn't be bothered to shoot a quick report to command. Yes, men really can walk and chew gum at the same time.
My guess is that the Watch Commander should have been remotely involved in the incident and, if notified, would have instructed the officers on how to proceed (i.e., DON'T FIRE YOUR TASER FIVE TIMES). We can argue about what immediately means, but note that the policy says immediately report and THEN says "restrain and secure the subject" along with a litany of other procedures to follow.
At least two things should come out of this, following the investigation:
- Officer Duren should be fired for cause. UCLA and the UCPD should stop making excuses for a guy that has this much on his record. Violent individuals do not belong in a police force; good citizens with good judgment do.
- The taser policy should be clarified and amended to prevent further abuse. Other police forces should be held liable if they fail to clarify the procedure for using a "lethal weapon."
This is not about protecting the police force. They know when they're in danger and thankfully they're trained to handle threats professionally. No, this is about protecting the community from a police force run amok, and clearly that needs to happen in Southern California. Police state indeed...